tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 25, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EDT
ordinance and the going even further than that and said individuals in public facilities in north carolina will not be required to go to bathrooms -- would now be required to go to bathrooms that corresponded with their gender, not their gender identity. it has been the matter of legal filings. court.w tied up in people haveome made decissions. the ncaa decided to withdraw various championship events from the state. it's the last development, the glencoe's conference in the end really kickto
things into a gear in which people in surveys recently say do you approve of this hb two law or do you disapprove? disapproval is clearly outpacing approval. no surprise that democratic candidates in the state disapproval is clearly outpacing approval. oppose governor mccrory and many state legislators who supported hb el it fair on governor mccrory's reelection bid. republicans have a super rightny in the state ow. host: alabama, good morning.
caller: i have two questions. allowed to vote in the election in north carolina? number two, this tpp, the current trade deal waiting in the wings, it's my understanding that there will be able to move workers from all these areas in the trade agreement freely into the united states. would that cost a lot of americans are jobs? guest: in regard to voting, there is an expectation that you will be a citizen when you are voting and will be expected to carolina,h in north as in other states. on tpp, the trade issue, that is no surprise that has been a trumpnt feature at campaign rallies in north carolina.
don't make mistakes in the future in regards to tpp. no surprise that trump has played on that. the trade issue is a classic issue where there are diffuse and if it's. economists will say, as a whole, the country will in effect from making these trade deals. arm and pain.ed that it willow help the country as a whole, but particular workers will be affected by it as a lose their jobs. donald trump has been focusing on that concentrated pain and harm. case. has been making the others have been making the case, overall, you benefit from trade deals. that is a tough argument to make in campaign where people are much more likely to field a are negatively affected by this and it's tough for me to say -- to
see this benefit you are touting for the country. host: we will hear next from marlene in north carolina. caller: good morning. i find that the coverage of the press, you know, our forefathers believed, in order for us to remain a free country, we had to have a free press. unfortunately, there don't really inform the people. take nafta, which you just mentioned about trade. nafta is -- people think it is just trade. calls for istually free movement of goods, services and people. leg.ever heard the third i've moved to north carolina recently from new jersey. new jersey is absolutely overrun. my family was here since the 1600s. years, newin 25
jersey go from an american state to an international state. so when you talk about these trade deals, how good is it for america when we have a $20 billion trade deficit just with mexico? the issues that the color brings up have been very prominent in trump campaign rallies, trump campaign ads. it is a whole set of issues. it's issues about immigration and a changing population. it's issues about trade deals. these issues have not completely been foreign to the republican party politics. pat buchanan raised these issues nomination battles, continues to raise them in national party politics and trying to push those into the republican issues. but donald trump has raised those issues to a greater degree than most previous republican
residential candidates have and has a different position on them that previous republican presidential candidates. what is the staying power of these trump appeals, particularly on the trade issue? suppose trump loses, suppose trump plans. regardless of what happens, does trump change the republican party in a way that makes it free trade, the standard free trade position in the republican party a more difficult one for republican candidates to embrace? or does this not have staying power. that is a question we will be focusing on. we don't yet have an answer. we will know in years to come. -- : professor done in aboutsor dinan, talk governor pat mccrory and congressman burr.
isst: most of the attention on presidential races. but north carolina is one of two, may be three states that has very competitive races. not only at the presidents level, not only at the governor's level, but also at the u.s. senate level. all three of those states -- all three of those races are highly competitive in north carolina. you might bee that able to say that about, probably new hampshire, perhaps to some degree missouri. there really it is north carolina. the senate race puts two-term incumbent senatorcs these days is a landslide. records has a very long in theee of prominence in the state up ago. a few weeks it wasn't clear whether that race would be competitive.
people should probably be surprised because north carolina competitive. more money has poured in from out of state as groups have been saying let's see if we can drive these numbers of for rosser buber -- for ross or for your have republican pat mccrory facing attorney generalr. challenger roy cooper, the for rosser for burr. you have republican pat mccrory facing attorney general challenger roy cooper, the democrat. north carolinians are comfortable's putting their ticket and it is not improbable that could happen again. those are the three races we are focusing on a north carolina. very competitive presidential race. a very competitive senate race.
and a very competitive governor's race. caller: good morning. thank you for having the show this morning. i just want to ask the professor about the down ballot races. shownk the latest polls secretary clinton holds a slight lead over donald trump. and roy cooper holds just a slightly it over governor mccrory. was just wanting to see if you thought that, if secretary clinton wins by a bigger margin than what is showing now, if , hertraction comes to her race in the state, will that add to deborahore votes
ross and roy cooper and other down ballot democrats in the state here in north carolina? host: thanks. guest: there's no doubt that one of the central rules in these campaigns in it presidential candidatesar is that are better of pulling his or her voters for down ballot candidates. north carolina does have a history, as i was mentioning a minute ago, of up to give voting. north carolina voters have been comfortable in recent decades in casting a vote for one party and a different one for the other. tore are people who come out vote for the presidential race first and foremost and a stay around and vote in line with that for senator and get there.
that being said, north carolina, as much as any other state in recent decades, has a history of split to get voting. both of this can be true. both of those are probably in play this year. host: what does early voting tell us about what potentially might happen in north carolina? are naturally -- early voting started in north carolina this week. it started on thursday. it continues on until the saturday right before the election. people are naturally scaring those numbers. may see what is the racial breakdown and the age breakdown and the party breakdown for people who have shown up in the first three days of early voting. i'm always has is then ted draw i'm always hesitant to draw too much out of this. here's what you can say with confidence. early voting is about on par with, perhaps ever so slightly numbers.08, 2012 is close enough to say that it
is on a par. different counties, different parts of the state, the will have different hours for early voting-- for early hours and early voting days. the one thing i would say is that we seem to be in keeping big dropsg boost, no from where we have been. so neither party would really take much from what the ac from the early voting numbers in north carolina. dinan starting things off as we take a look at the battleground states. thanks for you theoming up on c-span, pennsylvania senate debate in then the national security
threats and transition process at the pentagon. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues today with the presidential candidates in florida. hillary clinton speaks at a rally in coconut creek. we're live in 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. donald trump in tallahassee at the club p.m. on c-span2. in tallahassee at 6:00 p.m. on c-span2. to the c-span page, click on the supreme court. you will see a calendar, list of justices, in with video on demand, watch arguments and recent c-span appearances by supreme court justices at supreme court -- c-span.org.
between pat debate toomey and craddick challenger katie mcginty. this took place in philadelphia. >> this is vote 2016, the pennsylvania senatorial debate. the final matchup before election day. the candidates are republican pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. today's debate is brought to you by 6abc in philadelphia and the league of women voters of pennsylvania. and now, live from the temple performing arts center in philadelphia, your moderator, 6abc anchor jim gardner. jim: good evening and welcome to the final debate between republican and democratic candidates for the senate seat. they will be answering questions posed by me as well as questions sent from social media and from some members of our audience.
speaking of the audience, we have asked everybody here to refrain from applause or any other interruptions, except for right now, as we welcome republican pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. [cheers and applause] jim: we are so glad that you are here. we look forward to a terrific debate here tonight. before we begin, a quick note on some of the ground rules. each candidate will have one minute to answer the question posed to them, followed by a one minute response or rebuttal.
to the candidates, a personal message from me, i hope to cover a lot of ground here tonight. so, i hope you won't think that i'm disrespectful if i really try to hold you to your time limits. i will need your help and would appreciate your help with that. the candidates will also have 90 seconds at the end of the debate for a closing statement. by random draw, the first question tonight goes to katie mcginty. ms. mcginty, few issues around pennsylvania stir passions on both sides more than the issues of guns and gun violence and the second amendment. do you support background checks and assault weapons bans, a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, and a no-fly, no-guns list? yet one of the country's most visible advocate of gun control arizona congresswoman
giffords has endorsed your opponent. if she was in this room, what would you say to her? ms. mcginty: thank you all for being here. the first thing i would say to gabby giffords would be to thank her for her service and her courage. the issue of gun violence is critical. 300,000 people killed through the last decade by gun violence. i'm proud to be part of organizations like cease-fire pennsylvania, because i think there is common ground to be had on this issue. i come from a family where my brothers were hunters, sportsmen. i don't think that's the issue. coming together on common sense issues like not letting terrorists buy guns in this country, i think we can get it done. to get it done, you have to stick with it.
that's the difference i have with senator toomey. he lent his name to a bill. when the bill failed by a couple of votes, the senate has spoken. let's move on. let democrats take the lead. i'm ready to take the lead on this critical issue. jim: mr. toomey? mr. toomey: i'm glad you are doing well. thanks to temple for hosting this. i want to thank my family and friends who came down from the lehigh valley and greater philadelphia to be here. i approach this issue as somebody who is a strong believer in the second amendment. i think that is a very important on a personal right that we have, and it's properly enshrined in the constitution. it just never occurred to me that a three-minute background check to try to prevent somebody who has no legal right to a firearm -- that that in any way infringes on second amendment rights. so i got together with joe manchin after what was probably the most painful meeting i ever
had, when i sat down with the families of sandy hook, the parents whose little babies were just massacred. those families -- they weren't asking us to ban all categories of guns or do anything unreasonable. they said can't we make progress on a background check. joe manchin and i put together a bill. i still support that and i intend to reintroduce that, because we ought to be able to keep firearms out of the people who had no legal right to it. but katie mcginty is to the point of politicizing everything and hyper politics. that drives people apart and prevents us from finding common ground. jim: mr. toomey, perhaps because a woman is running for president, has a long-standing profound importance major issue. pennsylvania is now the fourth worst state in the country when it comes to gender pay equity in
-- and the world economic forum places the united states 28 in the world. there is something called the paycheck fairness act. it would require businesses to explain why wage gaps exist between their male and female employees and impose tougher penalties against employers for wage discrimination. five times you have voted to reject the paycheck fairness act. are we to think that accurately reflects how you feel about a woman's right to make as much money as a man? mr. toomey: i've been blessed to grow up and have a strong -- a family full of strong women, my mother, my sisters, my wife, who had a wonderful career before we got married, and i have a 16-year-old daughter. you better believe i want her to have every opportunity and to be compensated as well as my sons might be someday. the fact is though, the legislation you alluded to was ruled by even the washington post editorial age, no conservative page, as a boondoggle for trial lawyers, not as something that would actually make progress. i have supported legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. i voted for legislation that
makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers who share information about their pay. and i feel very strongly that women ought to get every opportunity and the same level of compensation as men. but i will tell you also -- jim: thank you. we are going to move on. i'm sorry. ms. mcginty. ms. mcginty: thanks. i believe this country was founded on a basic bargain -- you work hard, you get ahead. the truth is that families, women and families are working as hard as they know how, two jobs, three jobs, but they aren't keeping up with the cost of childcare, the cost of college, and just basic needs that every family has. i believe we need to honor hard work and, yes, i'm for increasing the minimum wage and enabling families to provide for themselves. and i'm for ensuring that a woman doing the same job as a man is able to bring home that same paycheck. these are critical issues, and i do disagree with senator toomey. it's not enough to have
platitudes or say that i think highly of women. families need income so that they can support themselves, and the senator has voted against equal pay. he's voted against increasing the minimum wage. he agrees with donald trump that the problem in this country's people are making too much. that's not what i see out there. he's voted many times against college affordability as well. this is about family needs, and i will fight for those families. jim: ms. mcginty, your opponents claim that you were handpicked to run for the senate by the democratic machine in washington and will be a rubber stamp for the democratic leadership and hillary, should she be elected president. i think we all agree that voters like an independent voice. can you tell us about one issue where you disagree with your party or your potential president? ms. mcginty: thanks, jim. i do stand with secretary clinton, because she is focused on standing up for families and rebuilding the middle class.
i think it would be helpful at this late date in the election if senator toomey would similarly let voters know whether he is voting for donald trump or not. jim: we will get to that, ms. mcginty, but i'm asking you about an issue that you disagree. ms. mcginty: i have one litmus test in serving the people of this commonwealth, any issue, any idea, does it serve our interest as a state and the families working hard in this state? there are some issues that i disagree with secretary clinton on. for example, i agree that it was wrong to set up guantanamo bay. we know that has been a tool that has been used against us by terrorists, as general betray us petraeus and others have said. but i cannot today say we should close guantanamo bay because i'm concerned we would have those who would return to the
battlefield against us. i know that secretary clinton will fight for working families, and that's what i'm going to do as well. jim: mr. toomey, you've been taking a little heat for refusing to say if you will vote for donald trump for president. i know you have been waiting for this debate. [laughter] jim: i know you've been waiting for this moment to say whether or not you will vote for the nominee of your party. so, is it yea or nay? mr. toomey: i am not a hyper partisan, reflexive ideologue. katie mcginty does that. i don't. there are a lot of things that concern me a great deal about donald trump, and i've been very public about it. i have criticized him repeatedly, publicly, because i think he has said some terrible things. i think he has taken some badly flawed positions. and i acknowledge the nominee of my party is flawed. katie mcginty is blindly supportive of the most badly flawed candidate in decades. she cannot even acknowledge what
we see on a regular basis, maybe because katie mcginty began a campaign with a lie about her background, coming she was the first in her family to go to college, when she knew her older brother had gone to college and come back to temple for a graduate degree before she ever graduated from high school. maybe it's katie mcginty's problem with the truth that allows her to overlook hillary clinton's chronic lies. jim: so, i guess that means you have not been waiting for this debate. [laughter] ms. mcginty: i'd like to follow-up if i might. jim: senator toomey, you know there are detractors of yours who will say that you are not completely disavowing trump because you need his supporters to win this election. what do you say to that accusation? mr. toomey: i have refused to endorse donald trump. katie mcginty says that was supporting donald trump. that doesn't make any sense. look, the dilemma is this, jim,
donald trump is a badly flawed candidate, as i said. but if he were president, he would probably sign a bill repealing obamacare, which we badly need. he would probably sign a bill that would restore sanctions on iran, which we badly need. so there is this dilemma. if hillary clinton is the president, we will have a doubling down on all the failed policies that have endangered us around the world, that have weakened our economy and that katie mcginty supports. like a lot of pennsylvanians i know, because i talk to them on a regular basis, who feel stuck, who feel that, i can't believe in a country of 300 million people, we've got these two choices, and katie mcginty can't acknowledge a single flaw in the nominee of her party. jim: i'm not going to badger you to say something that you are not going to say. don't you think your constituents, the people of pennsylvania deserve to know if you are going to support the nominee of your party? mr. toomey: i don't think my constituents care that much how one person is going to vote. they are going to make their own
decision all across the commonwealth about whom they're going to support and whom they are not going to support. i think they care much more about whether i've got policies that are going to help grow this economy, help keep us safe. that's the contrast on which they will make their decision. jim: you wanted to say something? ms. mcginty: i do. the senator is on -- in a class of his own on this issue. he's the only person running for senate in the entire country who has not leveled with his constituents. here's what i want to share with people here. in philadelphia, the senator will say he has differences and disagreements with donald trump, but in other parts of the state, what we hear from the senator is how excited he will be to confirm president trump's supreme court nominees. in other parts of the state, we hear the senator saying that he thinks donald trump has put forward incredibly constructive ideas. senator, in politics, the definition of courage and character is doing what's right even if it costs you votes. you have failed that test. mr. toomey: this is televised
statewide, katie. i'm sorry if you didn't know that. jim: let's move on. mr. toomey, the first american has been killed in the campaign to recapture mosul from isis. last february, you appeared to object to president obama's guarantee that the war against isis would never require american boots on the ground beyond our current advisory role. you said this, quote, "we have to recognize that the u.s. military has capabilities that no one else on the planet has and, if we're going to be successful in this, it's going to take american presence." in your estimation, sir, will it be necessary to send ground forces to fight isis? if a vote in the senate were to come up to that effect, would you vote yes? mr. toomey: i don't it's going to take and i don't think it would be a good idea to launch a large-scale invasionary force. i think we have capabilities the iraqis don't have here they
should have never been pulled out of iraq, then we might not be in this situation. we need people who can help with logistics, air traffic control, medical evacuation, technology the iraqis simply don't have. we must if you isis. an even bigger medium-term flat -- threat for us is the rise of iran, the hegemony of iran and the middle east, which is a direct result of president obama's very mistaken policy. this iran nuclear deal, which endangers all of us unbelievably and that katie mcginty fully supports -- what iran poses now is a very serious, nuclear armed, ballistic missile capable, regional threat that runs from afghanistan to the mediterranean. jim: we will talk about that. mr. toomey: i hope we will. jim: what i want to know is, do you believe that americans should be deployed to the front lines to fight isis at some point in time?
mr. toomey: as i said, i think it is the american contribution on the ground should be that of special ops, sophisticated -- i think its leadership. i think the bulk of the ground forces need to come from the kurdish fighters, sunni arab states that will be absolutely necessary to secure the peace afterwards. america can provide leadership and technologically sophisticated capabilities that others don't have. ms. mcginty: it's imperative that we defeat and destroy isis. i believe that means our airstrikes supporting local troops, not our combat troops. i think it means, second, that we have to cut off the financial lifeblood of isis, including their access to oil assets. third, we have to take them on in cyberspace as well. what's very troubling to me about senator toomey's record is that he hasn't shown up for many of the key hearings and meetings. the senator has missed some 90% of the key committee hearings and meetings on our critical national security issues.
and when the senator has shown up, his votes have been in the direction that takes down our security instead of enhances our security. for example, the senator voting against legislation that moved forward in closing some loopholes in our visa waiver program, critical legislation. the senator voted against not once, but twice the decision that would close a loophole that allows terrorists to buy guns in our country. jim: a question for you on the economy. there is a frightening prospect for something called "a new normal" in the economy. a federal reserve economist just a week ago said that the long-term economic growth in this country could actually settle at 1.5% for years to come.
a new normal. that would mean slower economic growth, fewer jobs, workers' wages and living standards would increase more slowly or even fall in absolute terms. should you be elected, what would your specific blueprint be for fighting the new normal? ms. mcginty: i think we need to ensure that people have training and -- job-training and apprenticeship programs, skills development, so we can put people back to work in jobs like rebuilding our infrastructure. it's part of the reason, though, that we do need to pay people a decent wage and enable people to fully and engage in the workforce by helping them with the cost of childcare. that's why senator toomey's proposal to hold back economic growth -- small businesses are the engine of economic growth and job creation. that's why learning that senator toomey had launched a bank, his bank has foreclosed in such a predatory behavior against small businesses right here in pennsylvania, killing jobs, hurting those businesses, that senator toomey's own bank's
practices are literally considered illegal and predatory and 30-plus states. that's a track record of the senator is working for himself and his own profitability, but he has certainly hurt those small businesses that were creating good jobs. jim: mr. toomey? mr. toomey: i want to talk about the small business background that i have with my family and how we get this economy going, but i can't let pass -- she just raise this, jim, and said something of shocking hypocrisy. she was referring to a legal device called a confession of judgment. she has scripted ads that have gone on tv, attacking me because of a bank using this. those ads were taken down today because they are so blatantly dishonest. they are off the air across the state because of the lies. but it's worse. it's worse because, the fact is, when katie mcginty was the
secretary of the dep, she, through the dep, used the exact same device on their own credit extension. she has the nerve to attack me for what a bank did, a bank that i was an investor in, when she was using the exact same device herself. this is what people are disgusted about with politics, when people like katie mcginty will be so hypocritical and just what tell the truth -- just won't tell the truth. let me get back to the economic issue. jim: you've run out of time now, sir. [applause] hopefully there will be an opportunity later in the debate. mr. toomey: maybe katie will respond. jim: here's the problem. i want to ask a question about your role as a member of the banking committee and your equity in the bank, and i wanted to ask a question about your experience with nrc energy, and some of the charges that have been leveled against you. you have taken time away from an opportunity to answer that question, and now you don't have time to answer the question about the economy. maybe you will figure out a way
to put that in later in the debate. mr. toomey, in june of this year, the pennsylvania house approved a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy instead of the current 24. opponents of the bill say it is necessary to prevent fetuses from feeling pain during a abortion. opponents say it is an effort by an 82% legislative body to limit a woman's right to abortion. what do you say? mr. toomey: here's what i say, this is a really tough issue, and there are good people on both sides of this issue, good people that i'm very close to on both sides of this issue. the reason it's tough? because it pits two competing values. on the one hand, there is the value of personal autonomy. that's very important all of us. the other hand, there's the importance of the sanctity of an
innocent human life. when those two clash, for me, i come down on the side of life, so i am pro-life. i accept that, under particularly its reshooting circumstances like rape, incest, or life of the mother, i would accept exceptions in those cases because they are so tough. but i think what we ought to do as a society is see where we can find common ground on a really tough issue. there has long been a consensus on a couple things. one, you don't perform an abortion on a baby that's about to be delivered. someone that's very far along, a seven pound baby girl, taking in her mother's womb, but katie mcginty is fine with that. there's no point at which abortion should be unacceptable for her. we've agreed for decades that we don't use taxpayer funding to pay for these abortions because of the difficulty of this issue, but again, katie mcginty disagrees with that. jim: your response? ms. mcginty: i do stand for the right of women to make incredibly difficult incisions
-- decisions that are medically complex privately, with her family, with her doctor, in conversation with her god. but you know, the senator king's -- the senator paints gruesome pictures. i got a call couple weeks ago from a gentleman from southwestern pennsylvania. that gentleman shared a story that just underscores for me this is a decision for parents, for families, not for politicians. the room was painted. the baby furniture was purchased. the teddy bears were purchased. and it was very late in his wife's pregnancy, when a terrible condition with the baby was understood, and they had to make an excruciating decision to terminate that pregnancy. so, this should not be about politics. your position on this has been decidedly out of the mainstream, joining with donald trump in saying that women are -- women and doctors should have to be
mcginty, one of the highest profile senate races in the country. we have invited our candidates to come off the podium for this segment. one has, and one has decided ash -- mr. toomey: i'm going to join you. jim: thank you, sir. we are going to start with a question that was sent to us on twitter. we can start with ms. mcginty. this is from -- it should be on the screen here. here we go. "how will you proceed with the future still made overfilling the supreme court seat -- stalemate over filling the supreme court seat?" ms. mcginty: the constitution says clearly it is the job of united states senators to consider, advise, and consent on judicial nominees. unfortunately, senator toomey has joined the cabal that now has made a historical milestone that is not a proud one -- the longest extend of time -- extent of time that a nominee has been hanging out without an appropriate hearing.
and it's not the first time that senator toomey has been harshly and determinedly partisan about a position that needs to be above politics. not long ago, he single-handedly held up for some 400 days judge lewis restrict the -- judge louis restrepo and recently put obama on notice about another nominee, rebecca heywood, from allegheny county, that the senator won't even meet with her, won't even allow her to proceed toward hearing. i would do my job. let's get to work. the hearing and review of these nominees that we are supposed to do. jim: mr. toomey? mr. toomey: this is another one of those "she was the first in her family to go to college" stories. i supported judge restrepo. the supreme court, prior to the passing of justice scalia, was roughly balanced. there were decisions that conservatives like. like the heller decision.
there were decisions that liberals like katie mcginty like. obamacare. with his passing, the question arises, will the court be in balance or will it swing to the left or the right? and in the heat of an election, with a new president coming in in just a few months, this is an opportunity to let the next president decide. that's my judgment. that's exactly what we should do. i will take a backseat to no one for the work that i've done in confirming judges for the federal bench. senator casey and i, working together in the six years i've been in the senate, we have confirmed 16 federal judges. 16. those are mostly democrats, because that's the nature of the arrangement when there is a democrat in the white house. but i worked with senator casey to confirm 16 federal judges to the bench, more than any other state in the union except california and new york. jim: we have some questions from students at temple university. they are video questions. the first one is from morgan. mr. toomey, you will answer it first. let's look at the screen. >> college that is a very huge
a very hugeebt is mine. of how would you plan to reduce the student debt for all students? mr. toomey: so, college debt is a big problem. i grew up in a blue-collar, working-class family. we couldn't afford the tuition for college, so, what we did was what a lot of families do, it was a combination of pell grants, student loans, and working my way through school. that's how my brothers, and sisters, and i were able to go through college. i think that combination makes sense. i've supported pell grants and increasing pell grants and i voted for legislation that puts a cap on student loans. the student needs to bear some of the burden for the education that will help them to earn more over the course of their life. the most important thing we can do is make sure that a
graduating student has great job opportunity. katie mcginty is doubling down on the failed policies of the obama administration that don't create the kind of opportunities that allow students to have the income to pay off student debt. that's something we have to change. ms. mcginty: that is an interesting story from senator toomey, but the record is different. there are many things we can do to bring down the cost of college. we have low interest rates. let's let families refinance outstanding debt. senator toomey said no. i'm glad you benefited from pell grants. unfortunately, you voted to cut $90 billion out of that program. even though 300,000 of your constituents depend on the program. middle-class families are struggling out there. bipartisan legislation that enabled an extended middle-class tax cut, so that families could afford college, and senator, you voted against that critical legislation. college is an important piece of enabling families have the skills and opportunities they need. we can get this done. i was proud working with governor wolf to restore funding for public colleges and universities, and we made a deal with the presidents of those universities to get more state money. then you have to put a lid on the cost of college. jim: thank you.
our next question from eagleville, pennsylvania. we are talking about a freshman majoring in bioengineering. you will be the first answer, ms. mcginty. >> my question for the candidate is the big question we had been the selection, how will we make sure that hard-working americans, who do their hard work and their fair share, will have a job in the future, and and how it -- can we make sure our economy is doing well and will continue to do well for future generations? ms. mcginty: thank you for that question. i think we had huge opportunities out there. i meet with ceos of small businesses and big businesses. they say they need skilled workers today. but we have gotten away from things like drug training and -- job training and apprenticeship
programs. i would support that. and i proudly stand with secretary clinton and saying that community college ought to be part of the high school, and extended certification and job training experience. i support making community college available. it's another way kids and families can afford college. when we have those skills -- when i was secretary of environmental protection, i was proud to put the skills to work. we brought 3000 jobs in renewable energy manufacturing here to pennsylvania. unfortunately, senator toomey, if it is not fossil fuel dirty a if it is not fossil fuel dirty energy, he's not for it. he worked to kill the tax credit dots t -- to cut those
3000 jobs here. one of the single biggest recipients of big oil money in the u.s. congress. jim: mr. toomey. sen. toomey: yes, follow the money, the 3000 jobs she talks about came because she funneled your money to a foreign company to come here, set up a subsidiary. they rewarded her very handsomely. she became a multimillionaire by serving on the board of this company, rewarding her for your money going to them. then they folded up shop. every worker lost their job. pennsylvania taxpayers lost their money. but it worked ok for katie mcginty, she became a multimillionaire. that is not how you grow an economy. the other way you don't grow an economy is raising money on the middle class. she has raised taxes on the middle class on every job she had in government. when she was chief of staff for tom wolfe, they proposed a massive tax increase. she was the biggest tax increase since the creation of the income tax. the fact is, we need lower taxes. that is what i have been working on since i got into public life. we need to push back on the crazy overregulation holding the economy back. i will help us create jobs and get prosperity we've been waiting for.
jim: john harris is a freshman here at temple, majoring in secondary education. he has this question. mr. toomey, you will be first to answer. >> what are you going to do to bring green energy to the state of pennsylvania, rather than focusing mainly on fossil fuel energies? sen. toomey: my view on energy is whatever makes economic sense is what we ought to have. if it makes economic sense at windmills, and in some parts of the country it does, then that is what we ought to do. katie mcginty strategy is to use massive taxpayer subsidies to subsidize inefficient sources of energy that make no economic sense. that makes us poor at the country. even on the upfront cash isn't enough to keep them going. she wants you to have to continue an ongoing subsidy to these companies. it is called the wind production tax credit that forces you are dollars to go to people who cannot produce energy efficiently. taxpayers lose, the economy's news -- lose. everyone has a higher electric
bill thanks to katie mcginty, because she forces companies to buy inefficient and expensive sources. it doesn't make sense. as technology advances, we will have the ability to generate more electricity from the sun, the wind, and as that happens, it will be available and we will buy it. jim: thank you, sir. sen. toomey: in the meantime, we should stick with our energy. ms. mcginty: i think it's interesting the senator should say that the energy companies need to make it on their own, but he's one of the biggest offenders of billions of dollars every year of tax breaks to big oil. i don't know about you, but i think exxon mobil can afford to you a few bucks in taxes. let's talk about taxes. his whole campaign is based on things that independent fact checkers have repeatedly chastised, because his ads have been untrue, false, misleading. here is real tax record for
senator toomey. so far out of the mainstream, senator toomey has said repeatedly that his view is that the answer is we eliminate all corporate taxes. that is a $473 billion a year giveaway to his buddies in big business. they rewarded him handsomely, as he's one of the single largest recipients of cash from them. but who pays the bills? the senator bills would increase taxes on middle-class families by $3000 a year. jim: thank you, ms. mcginty. sen. toomey: he voted for taxes for middle-class families for college. jim: we will have the opportunity to talk about taxes when we come back. we also want to thank our students who have supplied their questions, and also on social media. we will take a quick break and we will be back. ♪ ♪
jim: we are back live on the campus of temple university. we are having a good discussion, i think. we hope that you feel that as well. as for the candidates, has this been good for you so far? ms. mcginty: i wouldn't have missed it for the world. [laughter] jim: i want to ask a quick question of both of you. i'm just looking for quick impressions. you don't have to take the full minute. close to $100 million has been raised for this campaign. most of that money has gone to television ads across the state. it seems most of those ads have been harsh, bitter attacks against your opponent. here's my question. when voters hear this bad stuff about each of you for months, on end, every time they turn on the television, doesn't that contribute to the general sense
of distrust in and distaste for politics and government that we have been hearing so much about recently? mr. toomey, you first. sen. toomey: there's no question, there's been a staggering amount of money spent, and a staggering amount of ads. katie mcginty will decry citizens united, but she is the big beneficiary of it. they have spent far more on her behalf than the have against me. i suggested as a way to fight back against this, that we have five debates across the commonwealth. five debates so we can get into more in-depth discussions rather than 30 second sound bites. she refused. i don't think it is there to paint everybody with the same broad. rush there's only one campaign that their ads had to be taken down because they were flagrantly dishonest. that is katie mcginty. that makes a difference. frankly, she tends to deny many of the things she has done. go to my website.
you can see, we have documented the fact that the dep under her leadership used confession of judgment. she scripted the ad that had to be taken down. we have documented the dishonesty that has really been a problem in this campaign. ms. mcginty: what is dishonest is what the senator has just said. this actually only one candidate on this stage who had to take his ad down, and that was senator toomey. my campaign has had to take no ads down. there's only one person standing on this stage, who repeatedly, independent fact checkers have said, his ads are false and misleading. no wonder the senator doesn't want us to look at his record. the record of owning a bank and for closing on constituents. i am proud to have the
endorsement of an organization called and citizens united. it is dedicated to getting dark, secret money out of politics. senator toomey had a chance to vote on that and voted against overturning citizens united. no wonder. senator toomey has more money coming in from organizations like the koch brothers, then just about any candidate in the country. he has 100% voting record doing the bidding of organizations like the koch brothers. sen. toomey: thank you. jim: i'm not sure your respective answers had anything to eliminate distress. distaste.t and but let's move on. [laughter] "the washington post" did a study of all police involved shootings in 2015, and found that black men, who represent 6% of the population, accounted for 40% of the unarmed men shot to death by police. i think we all agree that the vast majority of police officers are extraordinarily brave and noble men and women, but do you think these numbers show that there is institutional bias in america's police department?
ms. mcginty: we've made a lot of progress as a country in terms of taking on racism and discrimination, but we by no means have fully succeeded in eradicating racism and discrimination from our society. i am happy to say, black lives matter. from where i stand, when we recognize the dignity of all people, we are all lifted up. when any person is denied dignity, we are taken down. i say that also has the daughter of a policeman, who reveres the work of law enforcement. our family would say goodbye to dad in the morning, and we did not know after he walked his beat, would he be coming back home. home.
that is why i have moved forward to say, let's give the police force the equipment they need, double the community policing programs, and make sure they have equipment and resources to be active in the community. senator toomey has pushed a punish the police bill that would strip law enforcement of critical resources. i know that works from a tea party point of view, take any government program away. but it hurts our safety, security and community. jim: do you think there is institutional bias? ms. mcginty: i think that we still have work to do. i agree with your assessment. we have good men and women. but we have to look into our own hearts. we have not eradicated racism, discrimination, sexism. we have worked to deal with. jim: thank you. mr. toomey. sen. toomey: there's no question there are bad apples in any walk of life. any profession has some. i've seen videos of young black men being shot under circumstances that are very, very disturbing. i immediately called for a thorough investigation and holding people accountable for any wrongdoing. but i'm absolutely convinced that the absolute majority of
police men and women across the commonwealth and the country are not racist. they are trying to do the very best they can to protect us. the problem with the black lives matter meng this, is the phrase itself is meant to impugn the integrity of the police by implying they don't think black lives do matter. [booing] and, it is my view all lives matter, and i think police get that. i think police get that. [applause] jim: ladies and gentlemen, please. sen. toomey: i will simply finish by observing that i respect and honor the years that katie mcginty's father spent on the philadelphia police force, but the philadelphia police have endorsed me in this campaign, as
have every other police foundation in the commonwealth. [applause] jim: come on guys, please you have been great until now. millions of americans are irate that their premiums and deductibles have gone up under the affordable care act. proponents explain that much of the high premiums are due to the fact that insurance companies can no longer deny americans with pre-existing conditions, and cannot charge higher rates based on health status or gender. do you dispute that, and do you bring costs down, while still ensuring americans that are high-risk? sen. toomey: first of all, that's not causing the problem with obama care. the problem is it is fundamentally flawed. sold a whole bill of
goods. we were told if you wanted to keep your insurance, you could keep it, when they knew they were systematically forbidding whole categories. we were told, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. you can't. the new insurance plans were designed to exclude doctors people were satisfied with. we were told the average family would pay $2500. it is the opposite. costs have gone through the roof. today, it is in a death spiral. it is collapsing. 40% of pennsylvanians have only one choice. you can't fix it, because it is based on a wrong design that puts the government in control, that should be determined by mom and dad around the kitchen table, not a federal bureaucracy. i think what we ought to do is repeal obamacare completely. we will need a transition for people receiving subsidies. we need to move in a direction where individuals can control their health care. ms. mcginty: my question is, where has the senator been? he's been in washington for 18 years. this is obviously a critically important issue. we need to make sure to bring down the cost of prescription
drugs. where is your legislation to make sure people have their choice? i would take action. i think it is important that people not lose their health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. i think it is important we not kick people off of health insurance because they have a chronic disease, and they hit the cap. we have to the cost down. there are things we can do, i will do, that the senator won't. first, we have to take on big pharmaceutical companies. we do only country in the world where federal law prohibits us from negotiating down the cost of prescription drugs, with the consequence that we pay sometimes 10 times as much for the very same drug. i will take that on, but the senator is a little too close to big pharma and big insurance. he will complain, but has done
nothing to fix the problem. jim: let's talk about iran. you have expressed your complete support for the nuclear deal. since that was signed, they have fired for nuclear capable ballistic missiles, to of them with the words israel must be wiped out written in he met -- hebrew. iran has also held 10 american sailors hostage at gunpoint. has any of this ever given you pause that may be the iran nuclear deal wasn't such a good idea? ms. mcginty: i think this underscores the fact that iran is not a friend of the united states. that is why it was absolutely unacceptable that iran would be allowed to gain nuclear capability. in my analysis, yes, the agreement on the table was the best way to ensure that iran would not obtain nuclear
capabilities. however, i've been very clear that we cannot tolerate any violation of either the nuclear deal itself, or other u.n. resolutions, including with respect to ballistic missile tests. i've been very public on the administration for tough sanctions. what we can do is what senator toomey has done. he missed 90% of key committee meetings and hearings on the issue. number two, when he did show up, he voted in directions that make us less safe, voting against closing loopholes in the visa waiver program, voting against closing loopholes that allow terrorists to buy guns in the country. jim: thank you. we appreciate your response. mr. toomey. sen. toomey: unfortunately, we know katie mcginty was dishonest about her family story, she was dishonest, blatantly so about the ads, and now she's being dishonest about my record in congress. it was a terrible failure of judgment to give $150 billion to the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism.
as we gather here this evening, the iranian parliament has not ratified the agreement. no iranian government official has signed the agreement. they don't consider themselves bound by the agreement. but katie mcginty thinks it is fine. it is not fine. they are launching ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. ask yourself, if their intention was to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, why would they spend millions of dollars developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons? as i said before, this is part of a disturbing pattern by the administration to essentially to this a rainy and access that extends from the mediterranean. they will have nuclear weapons soon. that will probably trigger a nuclear arms race with a sunni arab country. this was a bad agreement. jim: i need a response of about 35 or 40 seconds. we are coming to the end.
mr. toomey, i watched an interview you did in cnbc, when you called for the elimination of all corporate taxes. you said, let's not tax corporations. let them compete most aggressively on the global economy. if you had your druthers, would you get rid of corporate income tax? sen. toomey: i wouldn't. that was an inartful way to convey a simple message. the message is this. you can raise taxes on business if you like, but who pays that? if you raise taxes, it ends up being paid by the customers of the business, who buy the products at higher prices. my point is, we should have a simpler tax code. this is terribly unfair. it is loaded with corporate welfare, the kind katie life so she can reward her preferred industries. i hate corporate welfare. i've been the tip of the spear in the senate trying to end it. so much of it runs through the tax code. what we certainly shouldn't do is all a middle-class tax increases that katie mcginty has advocated, including income -- jim: that leads to my next question. ms. mcginty, you called for
raising the ceiling on income for social security taxes from to $250,000. you also support and build that calls for a .2% payroll tax increase to fund personal and family leave. you said you would not support any middle-class increase -- tax increase. aren't they just that? ms. mcginty: no, i've been clear i don't support any increase in middle-class taxes. in fact, my whole campaign has been about putting forward tax cuts for middle class families. jim: but aren't they increases? ms. mcginty: let me accurately describe my proposal for social security. i disagree with senator toomey, who wants to hand social security over to wall street. that would be $1 trillion in fees for his friends on wall street, but that would ruin the security of seniors. i say millionaires should pay
their fair share. the senator just tried to change history on his own record. he's on record repeatedly saying he would eliminate all corporate taxes. he's on record pushing legislation that would cut taxes for millionaires by $300,000, while increasing taxes on middle-class families by $3000. and the corporate welfare does not end there. jim: that is all the time we have right now for questions and answers. the candidates will each have 90 seconds for closing statements. i think they have some things they want to say. by random draw, katie mcginty goes first. ms. mcginty: thanks to you and everyone for joining us and tuning in. this country was based on a basic idea. if you work hard, you can get ahead. that was the story in the mcginty family. a total no complaint zone.
you pick yourself up by your own bootstraps, all 10 of us kids. but when we were being raised, if you worked hard, you could pursue your dreams. now what i see out there in every part of the commonwealth is that people are giving us their all, with pride and dignity and trying their best. but the bills are tough to pay. you have heard spirited debate here. i will go to bat for working families and the middle class. frankly, it is those very same families that senator toomey has left behind, foreclosing on them in a predatory fashion, while he made money on his own banks. tried to take away hard-earned social security, and handing that over to wall street. refusing to stand up to china, when china doesn't play by the rules, and takes our manufacturing jobs away. this i know. we have a very bright future to give people the tools to succeed, no handouts.
decent schools, college that is affordable, job training and apprenticeship programs. when we do that, no one can compete with the american worker. we will compete and win. i'm katie mcginty, thank you for having me here tonight. i ask you for the honor of your vote and support in this election. jim: pat toomey. [applause] sen. toomey: thank you. first, let me say, it has been an extraordinary honor to have the privilege to be the u.s. senator from pennsylvania for these last six years. you have heard tonight that there is substantial differences. if you want someone who will be a rubberstamp for the hillary clinton administration, katie mcginty is your candidate. if you want someone who will be independent, and will criticize the president when he's wrong from whatever party, i will be that candidate. we differ very strongly on many security issues. you heard her defend the iran nuclear deal, which i'm certain is a bad deal for the u.s. she's also a supporter of
sanctuary cities, which i think endanger us in our communities. the differences are probably as stark as anything on economics. i met with families all across the commonwealth. i met with people who wonder why this economy isn't working for them. why is it that some people are doing fine if they are a multimillionaire like katie and they have a lot of financial assets? those assets have gone up in value. but hard-working families across the commonwealth has been falling behind. it is because of failed policies in washington. too much taxes, overspending, massive deficits, and way too much regulation. is it any wonder we are not getting the prosperity we need? katie mcginty with double down on the failed policies. i want to move in a different direction that frees up our economy to create jobs and elevating the standard of living we've been waiting for. i would be grateful for your vote on november 8. [applause] jim: that concludes tonight's debate.
we would like to thank the candidates for appearing tonight. we would also like to thank our host, temple university. we would like to thank you for watching tonight. i'm jim gardner for action news. we leave you with these final words from the league of women voters. >> i'm susan, president of the league of women voters of pennsylvania. on behalf of our league members and the voters of pennsylvania, i extend our sincere thank you to the candidates, and to the moderator jim gardner, for providing this opportunity for pennsylvania voters to see the candidates for u.s. senate, and to hear their stance on the most important issues facing our commonwealth and our country. now, it is your turn for your voice to be heard. election day is tuesday, november 8. make sure you go to the polls and vote. it is your right and civic duty. ♪ [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the
national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. senate and governor races. this evening at 7:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span, the indiana governor's debate. wednesday at 7:00, live on c-span, democratic congressman chris van hollen and republican cashew let -- cash he thought like a -- kathy shall i got debate. then the florida u.s. senate debate. live thursday, republican senator tenney -- kelly ayotte and maggie hassan debate. watch key debates from house,
senate, and governor races. and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> now, the debate between incumbent north dakota senator john hoeven and his challengers, democrat eliot glass time and libertarian robert marquette. very public television hosted the event. >> welcome to prairie public television. this is the debate for one of north dakota's u.s. senate seats.
my guests are democrat eliot glassheim, libertarian robert marquette, and senator john hoeven. senator hoven: thanks to you and prairie public for hosting this debate. believe in north dakota, i believe in the people of north dakota. i believe that the role of government is to empower the people of north dakota. the means reducing regulatory burden, making sure he reform the tax code so it is progrowth, so it is simpler and more fair. that means balancing the budget. it also means supporting law enforcement and our military. these are the things that will make our state and our nation stronger. >> eliot glass syme, one minute opening statement. mr. glassheim: thanks for having us.
, grand forks suffered a tremendous flood. almost the entire city had to be evacuated. at that time, i was on the city council and we were charged with getting the city back up and running. people were concerned about whether they should reinvest in the city. on a council committee was on, some of my fellows spent a lot of time debating trivia. angry, ifrustrated and shouted at one point, stop talking and start moving dirt. that is the sense of urgency and want to bring to the united states senate. there have been too many things that they have not finished, have not worked on, have not taken care of and issues have been festering for years. matt: that's one minute.
mr. marquette: i'm running for the united states senate because i'm fed up, sick, and tired with the corruption and greed that have become systemic in washington. i don't believe senator hoven has done anything meaningful to address these issues. he is part of the problem, the collapsing commodities prices that are destroying profits for north dakota's oil producers and farmers are the direct result of failed economic and monetary policies designed to deal with the toxic consequences of our national debt. he has voted to add to this debt. likewise are part of his legacy. we can do better than this. i can do better than this.
matt: let's start with a hot button issue in the state, the dakota access pipeline. i want to hear all of your opinions on the project. and the ensuing protests. and where it goes from here. , you start useim: off with this. mr. glassheim: the permitting process was flawed. the tribes were not directly nation,d as a sovereign as they should have been, although they were invited to many meetings. that the early bringing of law enforcement and closing of that road was the right thing to do. havenk the governor should met with tribal leaders and tried to work out a solution. we are in a really bad situation now. the federal government
to step up with some funding for law enforcement. need thethan that, we tribes and the pipeline company to be brought to the table to see if they cannot find a way out of this impasse. if i were a senator, i would try to broker that kind of meeting. matt: robert marquette, response. mr. marquette: i fully support the dakota access pipeline. based upon what i understand, all of the permitting processes, all of the necessary i's have havedotted and the t's been crossed and we should go through with it. my principal concern is whether or not the condition of the world economy and the collapse of commodity prices, whether there will be oil that will be
pumped through that pipeline. think that the most important thing i can do as a united thees senator is addresse destructive economic and monetary policies created by washington's deficit spending and restore free-market forces, so that we can have a more thriving and vibrant economy in north dakota. matt: senator hoeven? sen. hoeven: we need energy infrastructure, not only for economic growth and job creation, but also for national security. to produce energy and get it where it needs to go, we need energy infrastructure. that means pipelines, transmission. we can build the dakota access onlyine safely, not protect the tribe downstream, but everyone else downstream. it goes in an existing right-of-way, where there is always a gas pipeline and a transmission pipeline.
whether you are for traditional or renewable energy, we need this infrastructure. we need the energy infrastructure, we need regulatory certainty, legal certainty, so we can build this infrastructure. the administration needs to step up. i'm pushing them to get this approved and help us with law enforcement and safety, so that we protect the farmers and ranchers, so that we make sure any protests are peaceful, but that we get this project done. , response?lassheim mr. glassheim: i agree we need the energy. we need to have pipelines, they of the safest means transporting oil. we are not going to do without oil anytime in our lifetimes. we need to find a way to do it. however, we do know that pipelines occasionally break.
there is no absolute guarantee of safety for drinking water. resolve thathow we issue, but the pipeline has to be built, but it needs to be done safely and it needs to be done, perhaps, in a different place, crossing the missouri, perhaps. but that needs to be negotiated out and discussed further. matt: robert marquette. mr. marquette: well, as far as i know, in the entire process, they had archaeologists on site to ensure that all the historical sites were preserved. filed.the petitions were the pipeline should just go through. i believe that it is the safest and most effective way to transport oil.
we need to ensure that we have a balkan tond vibrant ensure we can supply the oil. matt: last response, senator hoeven. can be done it safely. understand that it is already in an existing right-of-way with a gas line and transmission line. whether you are for fossil fuel or other infrastructure, we need this. it is going to be dug underneath the river. it is 92 feet below the bottom of the river. it is a most 100 feet below the river. somehow, the oil would have to come up to get in the river. there are monitoring devices on it, as well. also, the federal district court judge in washington, and obama appointee, determined that they had done everything they needed ng the pipeline.
the route has been changed 100 40 times to address archaeological concerns. it right and doing doing it well, but we need legal and regulatory certainty in the country to build the necessary energy infrastructure. one final point. it is one thing to have protest, but didn't to bps peaceful and within the law. what we are seeing down there are protests that are not within the law. that puts huge burdens within the law enforcement. the obama administration needs to step up and help with the law enforcement efforts. i'm looking to get reimbursement for the state and local cost of all this law enforcement. matt: let's move to national security. this has become a big issue with the attacks and him bernadino and orlando. as senator, how would you deal with isis overseas and also homegrown terrorism and routing that out? robert marquette. mr. marquette: well, we first have to understand the cause of the problem.
particularly with domestic terrorism. the cause of the problem is our failed interventionist foreign policy. yemen, none syria, of these countries have attacked the united states. our military and paramilitary interventions in these regions are murdering millions of people , destabilizing the regions, and these are immoral and illegal acts. it should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, that there is blowback to this activity. want to being people get even, they want revenge, they want justice for what has been done to their homeland and their people. matt: senator? sen. hoeven: you need a
comprehensive strategy to take out isis. you take out isis by working with our allies in the region. thatmeans the peshmerga, means the jordanians, the egyptians, the iraqi armie. we have got to make sure that we are working with our allies and then we provide the kind of leadership and strategy, the logistics, command, and control, those types of activities that can make sure that our allies in the region go in and, without leadership and strategy, take out isis. we've got to take out -- take them out at the root and then worked in our country with the fbi, the cia, all law enforcement agencies, and stand strong with law enforcement to make sure we root them out in this country, as well. when robert talks about drastically cutting our military, cutting it in half, in this dangerous world, that makes no sense and is not something
that we can do if we want to take out isis and make sure that americans are safe at home and abroad. matt: mr. glassheim, response? mr. glassheim: we are going to have no boots on the ground, first thing, in any large numbers. the country does not want it, we cannot do it, we have had a number of adventure wars over the last three decades and none of them have turned out well. so, i don't think we need to do that. friendlyneed to be with all of the muslim countries throughout the world who do not embrace terrorism, which is one billion or more people. that is why we can't have donald's proposals even trump'sd -- donald proposals even discussed because they alienate muslim people from the united states and we need them to help us in combating isis. intoed to put more money
supporting our friends in jordan and elsewhere, who are willing people whoainst the are killing their people, as well. need to we probably increase funding for the fbi and the intelligence services. aboutd to do something guns for people who are thought to be dangerous. there has to be a constitutional way to prevent them from getting guns as they have been judged to be dangerous. buyainly, the no-fly, no list would help some to not have domestic terrorists. matt: robert marquette, a response. mr. marquette: i appreciate senator hoeven putting words in
my mouth, but i would prefer to put them there myself. he speaks about working with allies in the middle east. there has been a wikileaks document that demonstrates that our allies, saudi arabia and isis. our funding i don't know how you work with allies like that. in syria, it is not just a civil war. it is a civil war, it is a cold war, and it is a holy war. these three things are being played out at the same time. as far as the holy war is concerned, it is saudi arabia and it is qatar, and certain kuwaitis that are supporting the otherl islamists, isis, splinter organizations, supplying them with looted just logistics and support. they perceive bush are allah
sought as a heretic for his secular ideology -- bashar al assad as a heretic for his secular ideology. they see that these heretics should be removed for sharia law. assad was a place where muslims, christians, and .thers could live in harmony the united states and its allies are on the wrong side of this fight. matt: senator? sen. hoeven: this is why we have to support our military so strongly. at the same time, we needed administration that will stand with our allies and stand up to our adversaries on a consistent basis and put forward a strategy , working with our allies in the region to defeat isis decisively. matt: mr. glassheim. mr. glassheim: i would remind
senator hoeven that we have a president who has a strategy. we have the continued drone strikes, we are pushing isis back, we are working with our allies. i think he is waiting for some funding from the congress, i don't know what has happened to the congress, but we are doing exactly what he says he wants. president obama is in charge of that and it is working. matt: let's move to the economy, specifically north dakota's economy, which, in the last year, is very dependent on energy and oil. we have had across-the-board budget cuts and accusations that maybe north dakota is too dependent on energy, too cozy with oil companies, as some have alleged. what can be done to fortify the state's economy from your seat in washington? sen. hoeven: i talked about this at the outset. the solution is not more government, it is stimulating the private sector, and
empowering the entrepreneurs, ingenuity. you do that by reducing the regulatory burden, reforming the tax code to make it pro growth, to encourage and empower more investment. you make sure you control government spending. i agree with robert, we've got to reduce government spending. those are the steps that enable job creation and investment. for me, jobs has always been job one. we have to understand that that comes from private sector investment and you've got to create the climate that will help us not only grow the base,y, build on our ag build on our energy base. the next wave of development in terms of economic growth will be technology. we have to continue to diversify this economy. that has been my life's work in the private sector and public sector. this has always been an absolute priority for me. matt: mr. glassheim. mr. glassheim: one of the most important things we can do is to
increase spending on research and development. much of which comes from the where newvernment and developments are discovered and then put into work in the we have a very healthy medical operation at the university. we have research as is needed in the clean coal and oil and these government programs help to stimulate jobs. i would remind the senator that most government spending goes to the private sector. sometimes he acts as if the government for were spending its own money on its health.
but mainlymainly they hire private sector people to accomplish the purpose the government set out. i would think that he's been very active and i need to applaud him for his work on the activity that is a very good next step and i think we should develop and we also need to research money in terms of establishing the presence in the global economy. >> first we have to recognize that the problems faced in north dakota are a direct result of national debt and the field of monetary policy. listen, since the great recession, the government has increased the national debt. it's a formula for bankruptcy and congress knows it. they had a choice they could have slashed the government spending and pay down the
national debt or what they chose instead to do is bailout they are banker buddies and try to stimulate the economy in an attempt to try to grow it faster than the debt so the interest rates were fixed near zero and they loaded up the reserves and the government told the producers you should borrow this money to expand production and increase the supply of goods and commodities. it failed and we ended up with an economy in a surplus of supply in things like legal and agricultural commodities and when supply exceeds demand, the price collapses and this is where we are today and it is senator hoeven and congress out of control spending that's created this problem. >> from the cosponsor if elected what action will you take to update social security so that its sound for the future generations. elliott.
>> glassheim: social security is one of my top priorities. it's extremely important to tens of thousands of retired people in north dakota and millions around the country and people depend upon it. we also need to make sure the government guarantees that it will be there long into the future. right now but congress has been kicking the can down the road, they've been unable to act on it and if nothing is done very soon within 17 years, everybody will take a cut in their benefits automatically. nobody will be to blame. everybody in congress will say it's not our fault we didn't do it but it will happen if they don't act. we need to increase the basic level at which people pay taxes. it's 114,000.
we need to raise that perhaps to 200 or 250 and that will bring in enough money to deal with most of that deficit and we may have to also do things to hold benefits in check. we have to have republicans and democrats agree. >> i am not a professional establishment politician so i don't need to lie to people about these things. the congressional budget and heritage foundation released a report earlier this year based upon the numbers that showed that social security needed an immediate injection of $50
trillion in order to maintain long-term solvency and we don't have the money. it's simply just not going to happen. the numbers also demonstrated they were projected in 16 years social security, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act, subsidies and interest on the national debt will consume 100% of the revenues taken in by the treasury leaving nothing left over for anything else including the national defense. we have to recognize the federal government has destroyed all of these programs and we have to take them away from the people who have so severely mismanaged them. >> we are getting very short on time. we need to make sure that it's sold and for the long term. right now it's about 2030. right now gdp growth is one to 2%. we need to get that up to three or 4% and also with job creation
we will get more people in the workforce. the percentage of people during the obama administration dropped from about 66% down to about 62%. what that means fewer people paying into social security. right now we have 7.9 million unemployed. .. i swear to the people of north dakota that i have the conviction to do what it takes to make the changes that will end the destructive economic monetary and foreign policies and wall street's corrupting influence on government and restore the wealth, power and control of our lives back to the people so help me god. hovenmack robert you you said some things after sponsor
greater than all of it this day talking to north dakotans and i think in what they want so when you say you want to legalize all drugs including math come including opiates all drugs may have a drug problem that's not what north dakotans want. all somebody has to do is look on their wet dasher web site and they will see that. so again this is about making sure that we do we can to build our state and our country. i've enjoyed working with you in the legislature through the years priddy the point about bipartisanship. we have to work together in this country. we have to come together in a positive way. i care about her country and her care broader state. we have to get this economy
going and we got to make sure we support law enforcement and our military so we are safe at home and abroad. that's how we build a brighter future. >> moderator: that's one minute. elliott, closing statement. glasheim: my folks believed in franklin roosevelt saved their lives. my father was a small manufacture supporting people
working for him and he every election season voted fora moderate republican. so i have looked at those elements in my character and i think i'm exactly what the senate needs to be able to work across the aisle and get things done. unfortunately i am glad to hear hoeven say that he wants to work together. he has voted 90% of the time
with mitch mcconnell and has been involved in the dysfunction of washington and not getting things done. i hope to incorporate democrat republican ideas. >> moderator: thanks to all of you for lively debate in thank you for watching republican aarp election of 2016. so long. ♪ >> coming up today, a conversation on climate change and the paris agreement. councilthe atlantic starting at 11:30 eastern on c-span. later, religious freedom and civil rights. it's considered whether small business owners have the right others basedces to on religious beliefs. that is here on c-span.
>> welcome everybody and good morning. i michele flournoy, a cofounder and ceo for the center for a new americansecurity come and we are really grateful that you all to join us this money. today we have a really rare i would say unique opportunity to hear from all three sitting secretaries of the services. second of the navy ray mabus, secretary of the air force deborah lee james and secretary of the army eric fanning. we were just beckley as to whether we've ever come anybody has ever gathered them all three together like this but i think this is a wonderful opportunity. as an of the service secretaries put a critical role in the department of defense. the report directly to the secretary of defense and provide the civilian leadership and oversight of each of the services. the services as you note are the force providers.
their job is to organize, train and equip the force. and the service secretaries provide critical direction and civilian oversight of these essential title x functions. the relationship between the service secretaries and their respective service chiefs is among the most important civil-military relationship. each of our speakers know some personal experience what is required for a strong and healthy civil-military relationship. each of these distinguished leaders has taken a tremendous responsibility of the department of defense that a particularly challenging time. first of all and that's one of the most complex and volatile security environments we've seen in decades with the rise of a resurgent russia, the rise of a powerful china, the persistent and evolving threat of transnational terrorism, new technologies and challenges like cyber, persistent rogue states like north korea, a middle east in turmoil, and the list goes on and on. but they've also had these leadership roles at a time of severe budget constraints. it had to navigate the budget control act budget gaps, unpredictable funding as we've we lurched from continuing resolution to continuing resolution. and always living under the
threat of sequestration. each has had to make some very tough trade-offs in an effort to balance readiness for current operations, force structure, and modernization. and while the combatant commands rightly focused on current operations, the service chiefs and secretaries are really charged with getting the future a seat at the table, making the investments necessary to ensure that the force will have what it needs to deter, defend and ultimately prevail in the future. each of these leaders is also championed reform within his or
her service. to reduce unnecessary cost, to free up more resources to invest in cutting-edge capabilities for the warfighter, to bring the department's business practices into the 21st century. i'm sure you're all shocked to know that wasn't the case before. to strengthen our ability to recruit and develop and retain the extraordinary people who will ensure that our all-volunteer force will remain the best military in the world, now and in the future. so this morning provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to hear from these leaders about their experiences at the helm of america's defense. what they have achieved, what they've learned, what needs to change versus what needs to continue. the challenges and opportunities that remain ahead. to moderate this discussion we are very fortunate to have with us barbara starr, pentagon correspondent from cnn, but beforehand it off, let me just note that when we get to the q&a period will ask you to write your questions on note cards. just raised a hand or a favorite to let staff know you would like to give a question. they will provide you with a note card and then collect it and bring those questions up to barbara starr. again, thank you all for joining us, and looking forward to a really insightful conversation. thank you.
[applause] >> thanks, michele. we will go about 45 minutes chatting and then go to questions. start thinking of them because if i don't get a big handful of guards, we will go turn by turn among the secretaries, i will call on you and ask you what the question is and then you can figure it out. i think what michelle said until it's everything right now as everyone in this room knows that if any, which is the future as a seat at the table. it has a seat at the table in so many ways. let me just throw a question out there broadly and ask, we will start and come right down the line, as you come to what may be the end of your tenure, one way or the other, how has this job differed from what you thought it was going in in terms of how you do it and what the priorities are? let's just chat about that.
>> first of all it's like to thank michelle and cns and you barbara and michael and i think this is an exploit the opportunity to we appreciate being included in it. how has the job differed from what i thought it would be? first of all the enemy gets a vote. i would say right at the top of my list in my three years nearly three years on the job, the world has just fundamentally changed in so many different
ways. as michele flournoy mentioned, for years ago russia had not moved into crimea and, of course, they are there now. they had not moved into syria. most americans had never heard of this terror group known as iso. all of these things have changed in the last three years and, of course, we and air force, in the u.s. military, our job is to be able to respond. so that is a key difference. and that the difference for me, something i didn't quite understand as well as i might have going in the front door was just how difficult it is now getting things done in washington. it has become truly a very divisive situation. it was mentioned about sequestration, continuing resolutions. it just seems very, very difficult to advance an agenda these days, and we have to get back to the art of compromise in this town much more than we've been able to do so in the past. >> secretary mabus? >> i will give you a different answer because i think one of the great strengths i brought to the navy as i know idea what the
issues were when i came in. i had been in the navy 45, 40 years earlier, but i had very little speed is on a different level. >> short, undistinguished service your but what he gave me the opportunity to do was i didn't have any frequency of notion as how this job should be done, and what the issues were asked to i should approach it the i didn't bring any baggage, as i got to take a fresh look. the thing that i think has been as big biggest prize is a thing or as big a frustration is how slowly the bureaucracy moves, particularly dod wide. if you want to kill something in the pentagon, do one of two things. say we need to study this to see what the second and third order effects are, or we need to do it dod wide. because then you go to the lowest as lowest common denominator. the army, the air force, the navy and marine corps have very different services, very different needs. and i think that you can get a whole lot more done if you a little bit of competition between these services. and if you allow them to be the experimenters to go out and see what works, either succeed fast or fail fast.
>> i will approach it a little bit differently as well. i had two great teachers when i came into be secretary of the army, secretary mabus and the under-secretary. i think, and i've been in the clinton pentagon. i've been a long time to watch service secretaries of what their roles are. there were two things for me, in the clinton administration i worked in osd. i did work in one of the military department and didn't have an appreciation for the role of the military department. one thing i find, in fact i often thought of a military department of clinical siberia. by what you want to leave the office of the secretary? that's why it's such a great job because you have become is the amount of autonomy, and the military departments, much closer to the troops that i felt i was one of working at osd which makes it a challenging job because in the ennui of 1.4 people -- 1.4 million people. that's what makes of reporting to be that much closer to the
the issue of, and it's far from boring, acquisition, new weapons, research and development. it always struck me actually about finding the way to move faster and get your cycle moving faster than your adversaries decision cycle. it strikes me that is still a fundamental struggle because you can have the very low-tech insurgent movements that move very quickly. you can have north korea that just decides to move quickly without a typical research and development and test of its programs. really serious, practical advice, once and for all, if one of the three he became the next secretary of defense, what could be done to get all of this
moving faster? if you look at a research and russia did and his but when you came to office, as you look at isis, which nobody knew what that word was we came into office. i think there's a common threat thread of wanted to get the bureaucracy and the politics of decision-making moving faster, practical advice. >> we will go the other way. >> two very different things. i didn't anticipate how much time would be spent on the budget because of the instability each year. we start every year come every year with a continuing resolution and don't know, don't have that stability for the long-term. so it takes an enormous amount of time of institutional leadership to constantly be rethinking through budget based on that instability year after year after year. i think in terms of trying to get the decision cycle down, that's been, i was only confirmed in my and my primary focus has been on that issue in particular for the army. so we started something called
-- i worked very close with the air force office when i was there. the army set up a little bit differently and it's designed to get capabilities fielded faster. so rather than getting the pristine solution am 100% solution out into the field, getting something into the hands of troops that they can use, >> i took a chart, about this big. you could not read it, it was like spaghetti. all the hoops you had to jump through, all the gates you had to pass. what we have been trying to do
and what eric and debbie have , been trying to do, we've been doing pilot programs instead. instead of a program of record, it's something out in the field fast, succeed fast, fail fast your get something come an example in the navy as we put a laser weapon in the arabian gulf. we do that for years ago. it was supposed be a six-month pilot program, and we can't learn so many lessons, them so valuable. we are using it now to develop
fall along weapons, but if we'd gone through the acquisition program for program of record, it still wouldn't be -- it's to get it out of the lab in defense of the warfighter. and as quickly as you can while avoiding the just incredible number and complexity of things you have to go through. >> especially for both of you, not to dismiss the army but for both of you, you have huge tickets, very expensive programs, the f-35, new ships coming into the field. not unexpected i suppose. they are all having problems, challenges, getting them up to the standard that you want. you have to have these major weapons systems but it seems harder and harder the more complex they get to work on them for 20 years and think you're going to know the adversary you're going to meet 20 years from now. on the f-35, for example, -- >> the practical advice i would offer, barbara, is actually several fold. so when it comes to the account of our programs come and get i will speak for the air force, we have many programs, some of the high profile highly complex types of programs which have run into difficulties over time, but many of them are going along. they are proceeding to they are smaller, they are low-profile. my practical advice is, if you target to send it to get you for your cube reviews and the strong oversight and ease up a bit, yes, we do, let's oversight, more empowerment for the many, many small programs that are doing well.
that would allow you to better focus the time and attention on a significant view where there could indeed be difficulty. so that's one thing. another thing is to maximize the authorities that we already have in law that perhaps we haven't fully maximized yet. and i'm thinking here of an approach called the other
transaction authority. this is a provision in love with elijah to move much more quickly in which we can air force at least set up a couple new contract vehicles to try to get some innovative companies to do business with us on some key problems, to in the air and cyber. we are setting up another one for space so that we can attract new companies and innovation into the military into it more quickly. so maximized some of the authorities we've got would be another focus. the third i want to pile on about the rapid capabilities that we have in each of our services, the rapid capabilities capabilities, and other pockets where we can already under existing authority move much
more quickly. i'll give you one that top of mind for me at the moment, and that is just emerging danger that we are seeing in the middle east with respect to unmanned aerial systems, these cheap, you can buy them over the internet small drones, and explosives are placed on them as we've seen a handful of times in syria and in iraq they can do damage. that we put our heads together on that topic quickly and figure out how to defeat that type of an approach. it's not necessarily the development of a new thing to defeat it. it to be taking what we've got already and packaging it in a different way to go after the threat but we need to do that type of work rapidly. >> i suspect you just got everyone's attention with that subject. so let's drill down a little bit. nuts and bolts, what can the u.s. military do, and we have all seen the video of this now, these little drone flying overhead and deploy their explosives. what can you do? >> i will value it was a week or two ago that there was a situation that was four killed, they were not u.s. citizens from one of these small unmanned systems. so it's a problem. i will also tell you about a
week ago it was now that we were informed, we the air force over in theater, was informed that there was one such unmanned aerial system in the vicinity, and fairly quickly we were able to bring it down. we brought it down through electronic measures. so you don't necessarily have to shoot. there's a variety of ways to attack the problem. what we need to do is put our best thinking together and focus on it on forward in the future. >> ggg and it? how did you break that electronically? >> i can't get into the specifics of it as you can imagine. but again it's a problem an example another thing we have to attack quickly. >> this is the reporter in me, i'm sorry. side note, in that particular instance since the coalition was informed, that it posed a threat to u.s. and coalition troops? >> any drone that possibly is carrying explosives is a threat. it could be a threat to troops. it could be a threat to civilians on the ground. we brought it down is the key thing and we need to focus on this for the future. >> that's an example of where the laser weapon i talked about to bring down a drone. >> let's talk about the current practical threat you're facing. your ships, there's been some confusion about it but not all that much, fairly have been targeted by rebels in yemen